Gay Rights Group Seeks Obama Role in State Marriage Fights
Email
Human Rights Campaign President Joe Somonese speaks against a constitutional marriage amendment during a rally in front of the Capitol.
Among the core constituencies President Obama has been courting in recent weeks, few have as many reasons to root for his re-election as gays and lesbians.
Obama helped pass a federal hate crimes law, repealed ”don’t ask don’t tell,” ended a ban on HIV-positive foreign travelers to the U.S., and ensured hospital visitation rights for gay couples, among other things. All are accomplishments he will likely tout in a speech to the LGBT community in Washington Saturday night.
But with a coming election in which Obama’s name will appear on the ballot alongside the same-sex marriage question in at least three battleground states, advocates are now pressing the president to use the spotlight and his campaign’s ground operations to help lobby for their cause.
“One thing that would be incredibly helpful would be for the president and the administration to look out across the electoral landscape next year, understand where it is that we’re engaged in marriage fights – whether overturning the ban in Oregon, or fighting a ban in Minnesota or North Carolina – and have something to say about that,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay and lesbian rights group, in an interview with ABC News.
“I think that will be important, particularly in North Carolina, where the legislature just passed a bill that would put a marriage ban on the ballot next year and where the president will find himself for the Democratic National Convention,” he said.
While Obama opposes same-sex marriage and believes it’s an issue that each state should decide for itself, he has also said laws explicitly barring gays from engaging in unions are discriminatory and unconstitutional. Earlier this year, the administration dropped its legal defense of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and Obama has expressed support for a Democratic-sponsored effort to repeal the 1996 law.
Solmonese, who described a close working relationship with Obama and the administration, says he is not particularly troubled by the president’s own stance on gay marriage, because it’s not clear Obama’s personal endorsement would affect the debate.
But, he said, Obama’s tendency to support marriage equality in at least in some corners of the law is telling.
“He came into office opposed to [gay] marriage, and an administration that was defending the DOMA. He now says he’s ‘evolving’ on marriage, and he and the administration have determined that DOMA is unconstitutional and not worthy of defense. And that is light-years from where any president prior to him has ever been,” Solmonese said. “So where we find ourselves as a community is kind of reading between the lines and making of his statements what we will and interpreting them as each of us might.”
Solmonese said that gays and lesbians, perhaps more than any other members of Obama’s base, have a “great deal of enthusiasm” for the president, realizing that the field of 2012 Republican presidential candidates are all “fairly dangerous.
“At the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is getting this guy re-elected,” Solmonese said of Obama. “Because one thing that’s really clear is where he stands and where the rest of the field stands.”
When Obama speaks at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual gala in Washington, D.C., Saturday night, it will be his second address to the advocacy group since he took office.
Best Commencement Speeches of 2012 
Joe Biden Recalls Death of Wife, Daughter
To oppose Gay Marriage is not hate, discriminatory or unconstitutional. – It is a unnatural act that is not supported by my Christian beliefs! – Obama has a constitutional duty to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act because its the law of the land!
Posted by: RadioMan77 | September 30, 2011, 2:24 pm 2:24 pm
Posted by: RadioMan77 | September 30, 2011, 2:24 pm 2:24 pm
—————————————————————————
Oh stop that..
Posted by: Twinkle Toes | September 30, 2011, 2:26 pm 2:26 pm
RadioMan77 | September 30, 2011, 2:24 pm post:
LOL! Yes, it IS hateful, it IS discrimination, and it IS unconstitutional. Where does the US Constitution say marriage can only be between a man and a woman? I know you find this concept difficult to swallow, but the gay marriage debate is NOT ABOUT YOU!!!!! If you personally do not believe in gay marriage, then fine, don’t marry a gay person. THAT is the extent of your involvement in this issue. Where in the hell do YOU get off trying to say what 2 legal consenting adults are allowed to do or not do? Who appointed YOU arbiter of what is moral or natural? I swear you self-proclaimed religious people are the single most INTOLERANT group of people on the planet. Every bit as intolerant as the hard core Muslims you love to hate so much. DOMA, if it were to be challenged in court, is CLEARLY an unconstitutional law. Hopefully someone WILL challenge it, right up to the Supreme Court. It’s a bad law that helps perpetuate discrimination against Americans.
Posted by: Searambler | September 30, 2011, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm
Searambler – That being said it is still a decision to be made by the states. The federal government is already to involved in things it ought not be. as far as intolerant – have you looked at the other side lately…far left looney wackos are just as bad as far right religious loonies … and each is not a majority but just the squeakiest wheels.
Posted by: MJ | September 30, 2011, 3:30 pm 3:30 pm
Searambler – Where does the US Constitution say marriage is legal? – Who appointed YOU arbiter of what is moral or natural? – God set down the laws of marriage long ago, he made a wife for Adam not a gay partner. So God is the arbiter of what is moral and natural! Not any gay rights group or the government! – So once again, to oppose Gay Marriage is not hate, discriminatory or unconstitutional.
Posted by: RadioMan77 | September 30, 2011, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm
Sal: – Nor do you get to impose your intolerant anti-religious immoral superstitious, hate filled left wing liberal beliefs on anyone! Yes we do operate under a Bill of Rights and a Constitution and they say nothing about marriage!
Posted by: RadioMan77 | September 30, 2011, 4:42 pm 4:42 pm
SearamblerOne: LOL! Yes, it IS hateful, it IS discrimination, and it IS unconstitutional. Where does the US Constitution say marriage can only be between a man and a woman?…….___________Have you read the constitution? I rather doubt it. However, let’s go to the issue of state law. Now perhaps gay marriage SHOULD be a state law. That would bring the issue out of the Federal courts and closer to the people themselves. The thing is, though, whenever gay marriage is put on the state ballot, and this goes for ANY state. The people ALWAYS vote it down. When gay marriage is imposed on a state by way of the Federal court, that’s when it passes. The Constitution DOES say “government for the people, by the people”. It’s the PEOPLE who are against gay marriage, Searambler.
Posted by: Ivan | September 30, 2011, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm
Yes we do operate under a Bill of Rights and a Constitution and they say nothing about marriage!
Posted by: RadioMan77 | September 30, 2011, 4:42 pm 4:42 pm
If they say nothing about marriage, who gave you the right to impose your superstitious beliefs on other people? the answer – nobody! Leave other people alone to live their lives as they chose under the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the rule of law. Live you own life the way you want to, but keep your superstitious bigotry to yourself.
Posted by: Sal | September 30, 2011, 4:55 pm 4:55 pm
Marriage is a state issue, and each state makes its own rules.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | September 30, 2011, 6:13 pm 6:13 pm
Marriage is a state issue, and each state makes its own rules.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | September 30, 2011, 6:13 pm 6:13 pm
Not really . . .
“Interracial marriage in the United States has been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, with many states choosing to legalize interracial marriage at much earlier dates.”
Posted by: Jason | September 30, 2011, 6:36 pm 6:36 pm
I’m glad we have a president in the white house that is for all Americans, and not just some. We as a country are moving in the right direction with Obama.
Posted by: Jon John | October 1, 2011, 10:31 am 10:31 am
I’m glad we have a president in the white house that is for all Americans, and not just some. We as a country are moving in the right direction with Obama. – Posted by: Jon John | October 1, 2011, 10:31 am
Well Jon, Obama is not for all Americans, if your live in Arizona he doesn’t seem to care about the crime wave that is sweeping across the state from the hordes of illegals sneaking over the border! – Obama has divided the country with his brand of liberal hate and class warfare and nothing good has come for it! We as a country are moving in the WRONG direction with Obama, unless you agree with his Chicago Gangster style politics!
Posted by: RadioMan77 | October 1, 2011, 1:11 pm 1:11 pm
Well Jon, Obama is not for all Americans, if your live in Arizona he doesn’t seem to care about the crime wave that is sweeping across the state from the hordes of illegals sneaking over the border!
Posted by: RadioMan77 | October 1, 2011, 1:11 pm 1:11 pm
Do some research – Obama has been deporting more illegals than Bush. You’re not basing your opinions on fact, but rather on bias.
Posted by: Jane | October 1, 2011, 6:42 pm 6:42 pm
Sorry Jane, but I doubt the deportation numbers are real! And if you want the real truth, come to Arizona and see for yourself! – Obama has done NOTHING to stop the hordes of illegals from entering the country! Get your facts together! Americans near the border are not even safe in their own homes, thanks to Obama’s lack of border enforcement! !
Posted by: RadioMan77 | October 1, 2011, 7:15 pm 7:15 pm
God set down the laws of marriage long ago, he made a wife for Adam not a gay partner. So God is the arbiter of what is moral and natural! Posted by: RadioMan77 | September 30, 2011, 4:18 pm
I’m an atheist. Your god doesn’t make any laws for me. Your god doesn’t decide for me what is moral or natural. You can believe the fairy tale that this magical being created a man out of dirt and clay, then created a woman by removing one of the man’s ribs. I don’t. Keep your religion and your pseudo-moral rantings out of my government. This is not a theocracy, this is a Constitutional Republic. Governed by the rule of law, not by some made-up gods law. Two legally consenting adults should have the RIGHT to marry and enjoy the same legal benefits given to every other married couple. Period.
Posted by: Searambler | October 2, 2011, 9:14 am 9:14 am
The thing is, though, whenever gay marriage is put on the state ballot, and this goes for ANY state. The people ALWAYS vote it down. Posted by: Ivan | September 30, 2011, 4:51 pm.
And slavery was similarly protected by certain states, remember? That doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t make it less discriminatory. “In June 2011, two prominent polling organizations released an analysis of the changing trend in public opinion about same-sex marriage in the United States, concluding that “public support for the freedom to marry has increased, at an accelerating rate, with most polls showing that a majority of Americans now support full marriage rights for all Americans.”"
Posted by: Searambler | October 2, 2011, 9:21 am 9:21 am
Sorry Jane, but I doubt the deportation numbers are real! Posted by: RadioMan77 | October 1, 2011, 7:15 pm.
Why? Because they reflect positively on Obama? You can “doubt” all you want, your doubt doesn’t change the facts. Someday I hope you take off your blinders. But I “doubt” you ever will…………
Posted by: Searambler | October 2, 2011, 9:23 am 9:23 am
It’s the PEOPLE who are against gay marriage, Searambler.
Posted by: Ivan | September 30, 2011, 4:51 pm.
And how many of “the people” were against ending slavery? Against ending the ban on inter-racial marriage? Against women having the right to vote? Against the Civil Rights laws enacted in the 60′s? Against invading Iraq, a country that did not attack us? Against Reagan’s illegal immigrant amnesty?
Posted by: Searambler | October 2, 2011, 9:26 am 9:26 am
Have you read the constitution? I rather doubt it.
Posted by: Ivan | September 30, 2011, 4:51 pm
LOL! Probably more often than you. You CANNOT make gay marriage a state’s rights issue only. Because that would give states the ability to NOT recognize a legally binding contract made in another state, which IS unconstitutional. Under Article 4, section 1 of the Constitution, the ‘full faith and credit’ clause. Look it up and educate yourself. This is also the reason why DOMA would HAVE to be declared unconstitutional if someone were to actually fight it all the way up to the Supreme Court…………
Posted by: Searambler | October 2, 2011, 9:33 am 9:33 am
Well Jon, Obama is not for all Americans, if your live in Arizona he doesn’t seem to care about the crime wave that is sweeping across the state from the hordes of illegals sneaking over the border! Posted by: RadioMan77 | October 1, 2011, 1:11 pm.
Except, that is a huge, Republican spawned LIE. There IS no ‘crime wave sweeping the state’ due to illegals entering the state. Over the last decade, the violent crime rate in Arizona has dropped by 19 percent, while property crime is down by 20 percent. Crime has also declined in the rest of the country, but not as fast as in Arizona. Truth is, illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native Americans. Most come here to work, and in their desire to stay, they are generally afraid to do anything that might draw the attention of armed people wearing badges. El Paso, Texas, is next door to the exceptionally violent Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, and easily accessible to illegal entry. Yet it is one of the safest cities in the United States. The ‘crime wave’ you alluded to simply does not exist, despite the fact that Bill O’Reilly and FOX tell you it does. The FACTS prove them to be liars, once again…………
Posted by: Searambler | October 2, 2011, 9:41 am 9:41 am
This is more of a religious issue than a political one. The mideastern religions have always preached against homosexuality. (Sometimes against heterosexuality). Imposing sharia law or any religious laws on the general public is a violation of the First Amendment.
Tea party evangelicals ignore the First Amendment.
Posted by: oonogil | October 2, 2011, 11:13 am 11:13 am
Opposing gay marriage is not discriminatory, its a long lasting belief that has been taught to older generations at a young age. Although I do not judge anyone for the choices they make this is more than just a political debate it is also a religious debate. Marriage is a binding contract between a man and a women in the eyes of god and many people brought up with a strong religious background do not understand gay ideals and consider it a sin. People believe it can weaken the institution of marriage as a whole, as well as weaken traditional family values as a whole which are essential for our society. Making it a legal institution could open the door to other religious debates… multiple wives, marrying animals, marrying children or other outrageous things people believe in. These laws are in place for a reason and although it is hard to deal with it, each state needs to make their best judgement call on whether they believe gay marriage should be seen as a legal bond. There are a few states gay couples can go and have their marriage made official but its hard to say that this option will be available in every state any time soon.
Posted by: Alexandra | October 3, 2011, 2:48 pm 2:48 pm
Alexandra, with all due respect, you’re full of crap. Especially when you say stuff like, “Making it a legal institution could open the door to other religious debates… multiple wives, marrying animals, marrying children or other outrageous things people believe in.” What religion practices marrying animals or children?!?!? That is called a ‘false flag argument’ and is, frankly, silly. Here’s a thought – remove religion from the equation entirely. Marriage is a legally binding contract that confers specific and special secular rights and privileges to 2 people who enter into that contract. Certain rights that non-married people do not enjoy. Denying a segment of the population access to those rights is pure, 100% discrimination, especially when the REASONS you cite are religious. Your statement, “Marriage is a binding contract between a man and a women in the eyes of god…” would probably hold water if HALF of all marriages didn’t end in divorce. Y’all have lost all credibility with the whole ‘sanctity of marriage’ argument. You also said, “People believe it can weaken the institution of marriage as a whole, as well as weaken traditional family values as a whole which are essential for our society.” Please, tell me, how does allowing 2 legally consenting adults of the same sex to get married accomplish this ‘weakening’? Would YOUR marriage or YOUR ‘family values’ somehow suffer or become weaker if you found out that the 2 guys or gals living next door to you were a married couple? Because if it does, then I submit the problem is YOURS, and not them………….
Posted by: Searambler | October 3, 2011, 3:32 pm 3:32 pm
Hey, what if in some twilight zone you were given a choice in life, 1. you can be an al qaeda operative, and choice 2. you can be a homsexual . Which would you choose to be, and there isn’t any other choices, it’s the twilight zone.
Posted by: vanhellslinger | October 6, 2011, 10:48 pm 10:48 pm
Truly enlightening thank you, I believe your trusty readers may very well want even more blog posts along these lines maintain the excellent hard work.
Posted by: Johnny Jefferson | October 13, 2011, 12:33 pm 12:33 pm